Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

The thing with not voting is that it isn't a protest. If you don't vote, you don't exist.

Politicians don't care if you don't vote. A protest only matters if you are noticed. So vote minority, of someone you actually support no matter how unlikely. You don't vote just to win.

If anything, all those arguments about Swing Voters are exactly that; people who don't care about either side but vote anyway. If being a Swing voter is so damn important that news media have to dedicate airtime to it every election, you can't say your vote won't count.

Problem: the popular vote means jack shit if you live in a non-swing state. It's the electoral vote that counts, and California is overwhelmingly Democrat. California's electoral votes will always go toward the Democrats.

If I vote for a Green or Indep, my vote might as well be vapor.

Actually, even in a swing state, my Green or Indep vote means nothing, because the only "swinging" going on is between Democrat and Republican!

Problem: the popular vote means jack shit if you live in a non-swing state. It's the electoral vote that counts, and California is overwhelmingly Democrat. California's electoral votes will always go toward the Democrats.

If I vote for a Green or Indep, my vote might as well be vapor.

Actually, even in a swing state, my Green or Indep vote means nothing, because the only "swinging" going on is between Democrat and Republican!

Your vote being Vapor is better than having no vote at all.

That's what I don't get; your logic is "I don't want my vote to be a waste so I don't want to vote third party".

But your conclusion is "So I would not vote at all and thus, deliberately waste my vote".

Seriously, I don't care where you stand politically, but to simultaneously want to make your vote count yet refusing to vote is bizzare from my point of view.

Can you explain why you would think it is fine to waste you vote one way, but not fine to waste your vote in another fashion?

No. It's simply pragmatism. If my vote means nothing, why bother? I can vote for a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, an Independent, or Mickey Mouse, and it wouldn't matter at all. California's electorate will vote Democrat regardless of what I do.

So why inconvenience myself?

If my vote mattered, I'd go vote. Actually, I do vote on things I know I can influence. I vote on propositions and I vote in local elections.

No. It's simply pragmatism. If my vote means nothing, why bother? I can vote for a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, an Independent, or Mickey Mouse, and it wouldn't matter at all. California's electorate will vote Democrat regardless of what I do.

So why inconvenience myself?

If my vote mattered, I'd go vote. Actually, I do vote on things I know I can influence. I vote on propositions and I vote in local elections.

It works the other way; Your vote don't matter because you didn't vote.

It does not matter what the rest of the electorate vote for, what matters is what you vote for. Because the electorate is made up of individual humans. Individual humans like you.

But by not voting, you deliberately remove yourself from the electorate.

Are you saying you would only vote if you get to decide who wins? Then it is hardly a democracy.

Quote:

If my vote mattered, I'd go vote. Actually, I do vote on things I know I can influence. I vote on propositions and I vote in local elections.

And finally, I fail to see the difference between local elections, propositions and federal elections. In none of these cases could you guarantee any influence at all. You have one vote, like everyone else. And votes win elections.

I've only been able to watch and read excerpts of the debate, but I want to ask the Americans on this board something.

If I'm not mistaken, the FOX hosts were asking if there was a chance to pass legislation on a ratio of 10$ spending cuts to 1$ tax increases, whether or not they'd agree with that. And not a single candidate said he would go for that.

Is this how you feel, too? In the light of the extreme structural deficits?

If I'm not mistaken, the FOX hosts were asking if there was a chance to pass legislation on a ratio of 10$ spending cuts to 1$ tax increases, whether or not they'd agree with that. And not a single candidate said he would go for that.

Is this how you feel, too? In the light of the extreme structural deficits?

Even voters on the Republican base feel the necessary of tax increases when the time comes. It just shows how really far off these politicians are.

It works the other way; Your vote don't matter because you didn't vote.

It does not matter what the rest of the electorate vote for, what matters is what you vote for. Because the electorate is made up of individual humans. Individual humans like you.

But by not voting, you deliberately remove yourself from the electorate.

Are you saying you would only vote if you get to decide who wins? Then it is hardly a democracy.

And finally, I fail to see the difference between local elections, propositions and federal elections. In none of these cases could you guarantee any influence at all. You have one vote, like everyone else. And votes win elections.

What you're missing is that the presidential election is handled differently than local election, state elections, or even congressional elections -- all of which are decided by POPULAR vote and therefore every vote matters.

With the Presidential election.... it is completely possible to win the popular vote and lose the election because of the electoral college process. California doesn't deliver "100million votes" to the process, it delivers 55 votes as a block. If the state is consistently 60%DEM, 39%GOP and 1%OTHER.... it will deliver all 55 E.C. votes to the DEMs.

Its not hard to see why a vote for the Green Party might seem pointless at the presidential level.

I've only been able to watch and read excerpts of the debate, but I want to ask the Americans on this board something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mentar

If I'm not mistaken, the FOX hosts were asking if there was a chance to pass legislation on a ratio of 10$ spending cuts to 1$ tax increases, whether or not they'd agree with that. And not a single candidate said he would go for that.

Is this how you feel, too? In the light of the extreme structural deficits?

There's very very few Americans that actually are that extreme... the thing that the hosts left out is that any tax increases (or more accurately - expiration of tax loopholes and welfare/subsidies for the rich) would be targeted and unlikely to apply to the working classes. ((and these days, anyone making under $500K a year is probably a "working class peasant").

Its insane to look at cuts without looking at revenue dysfunctions (broken tax code) or re-prioritization.

Actually you are incorrect in assuming your vote won't matter. While it may get lost in the electoral college this time, if the third party of your choice gets I believe it is over 5% of the popular vote, they get to be on the ticket next time for sure, and it can help get them noticed as legitamate for the next election. If people actually pay attention to the third parties they will gain voters, and if popular enough, or they seem like a real alternative to the two party system could overturn one or both of the current main parties in your state.

Another idea would be to set up a proposition that changed the state electoral system to reflect the actual percentage of the popular vote more accurately instead of a winner takes all system. Then California's votes mean something since we have the largest number of electors in the Union (being effectively 10% of the vote).

I am and have always been an "Undeclared" voter. I enjoy (when allowed) my freedom of choice in politics. If I want to vote Republican I will. If I want to vote Democrat I will. If I want to vote for Gallagher for President....I can (cause if you are going to be a laughing stock of a nation, might as well have a comedian running the place).

If everyone in California voted, it might actually change what the electoral college does. The conservative voters stopped voting a while ago, and the more liberal voters also stopped voting a while ago, both for the same reasons you have. If less than 40% of the population is voting...who knows what the actually vote of the remaining 60+% is? We could have 51% Libertarians in this state that don't vote thinking it is pointless. (of course actual voter turn out in California was supposedly close to 80% in the last presidencal election)

I've only been able to watch and read excerpts of the debate, but I want to ask the Americans on this board something.

If I'm not mistaken, the FOX hosts were asking if there was a chance to pass legislation on a ratio of 10$ spending cuts to 1$ tax increases, whether or not they'd agree with that. And not a single candidate said he would go for that.

Is this how you feel, too? In the light of the extreme structural deficits?

As politely as I can put it, they're all fucking insane. They expect money to just appear out of thin air.

I don't feel that way at all. I think taxes need to be increased and tax loopholes for corporations need to be closed.

There's very very few Americans that actually are that extreme... the thing that the hosts left out is that any tax increases (or more accurately - expiration of tax loopholes and welfare/subsidies for the rich) would be targeted and unlikely to apply to the working classes. ((and these days, anyone making under $500K a year is probably a "working class peasant").

Its insane to look at cuts without looking at revenue dysfunctions (broken tax code) or re-prioritization.

That is EXACTLY what needs to happen.
All the corporate welfare/subsidies for the uber-rich ($1million/year plus) need to end and applicable taxes need to be enforced.
I'd add that we need to re-implement tariffs on goods made overseas since countries like China do this to our products.
Free Trade isn't free, it costs American's their jobs, and in turn tax revenue of States and local governments.

The main reason why I'm asking is that there's a huge discrepancy between the US and for example Germany here.

In Germany, our budget deficit has dropped below 3%. Therefore, "Die Liberalen" (who are actually the big business/rich people client party over here) were pushing for some minor tax breaks, but the German population literally hammered them, since over 70% of the polled stated that they wanted the budget balanced before any thoughts were wasted on tax breaks. Rather raise taxes some to speed up the process.

What I can't understand is how all Republicans candidates can take positions like "more tax breaks to grow the economy" and "close loopholes" (without naming them, of course) without being considered as non-credible.

They remember the call from George H. W. Bush dring his 1988 campaign, "No new taxes". He was at some point forced to add new taxes and it killed his reelection campaign. Now the Republican Party goes on with "no new taxes" and means to keep that part of their word to both get into and remain in office...because many Americans feel overtaxed to begin with (with what seems like 50% or more of ones income going towards one tax or another, be it Income Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, State Taxes, Fuel Taxes, etc, etc....)

The main reason why I'm asking is that there's a huge discrepancy between the US and for example Germany here.

In Germany, our budget deficit has dropped below 3%. Therefore, "Die Liberalen" (who are actually the big business/rich people client party over here) were pushing for some minor tax breaks, but the German population literally hammered them, since over 70% of the polled stated that they wanted the budget balanced before any thoughts were wasted on tax breaks. Rather raise taxes some to speed up the process.

What I can't understand is how all Republicans candidates can take positions like "more tax breaks to grow the economy" and "close loopholes" (without naming them, of course) without being considered as non-credible.

You have to have journalists and media that are willing to call "bullshit" and challenge unsupportable BS assertions ... we don't have that any more.

I'm tired. I'm only twenty-seven and I'm already tired. I think a year and a half on the streets and in a homeless shelter, three years spent unemployed and barely surviving, with a family who pretends I don't exist... Yeah, that'll do it.

I just don't want to deal with it anymore. I just want to get through my life without ending up in another shelter, or on the streets, or dead face-down in a gutter. I just want to spend my time with my fiancee and my gadgets, blow my disposable income on lolita fashion, hang out at fancy teahouses wearing floofy dresses, and to fucking hell with politics.

I am just too goddamned tired. The game is rigged. The whole system is fucked from the start. Short of slaughtering all those motherfuckers in Congress and piling their bloody, mutilated corpses up in the lawns of their CEO masters, nothing will ever change within my lifetime.

So why bother? I can't even read the news anymore. During the debt limit bullshit, it did nothing but simultaneously piss me off and stress me out.

You really want me to vote that badly? Pay me, then. I'd rather sell my useless vote for $200 than pick between Corporate Shill A, Corporate Shill B or Corporate Shill C. At least I'll get something out of that deal which actually affects my life in a positive way.